I do the same, but the loud version isn't too different sounding (once adjusted for fair comparison) that everyone always prefers the softer one. Learning how to do "loud" without noticeable artifacts is the whole ball game it seems. This is of course, lamentable, chiefly because all the care that goes into walking that fine line should be put into TONE, not VOLUME. This is why I do my own mastering now, I figured out how to get it as loud and clean as Sterling, but I put more care and effort into the sonics. After 20 or so disappointing results from the big mastering houses over the years I decided to make the tonal shaping as well as the volume shaping part of a 2 step mixing process.
Of course you need a lot of experience, a killer room/monitor and reliable references for many genres, plus a way to cross check mixes in several domestic environments, and frankly most mixers shouldn't mess with this stuff until they have it nailed. But if you trust yourself to do a better job than the the big guys, why wouldn't you? After all, modern mastering is not as difficult or mysterious as modern mixing. Don't believe me? Consider this, a great mixer can learn to master well WAY quicker than a great masterer can learn great mixing. Yeah, yeah, I've heard all the arguments here but stop! The mixing skill set is
infinitely larger than the mastering chops, kinda like comparing Charlie Parker to BB King.
Only someone who who doesn't understand both skills would disagree, ahem, IMHO...
